Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
Wasteful? You think that pursuing the scientific method "wasteful". Lets ignore the fact that McIntyre has destroyed every claim that the clueless have made, we'll just ignore that fact...but here we have someone who claims to be a "ocean engineer" stating that checking on other peoples work, THE FOUNDATION of the scientific method is "wasteful".
I think we know who the real science deniers are here.
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
Wasteful? You think that pursuing the scientific method "wasteful". Lets ignore the fact that McIntyre has destroyed every claim that the clueless have made, we'll just ignore that fact...but here we have someone who claims to be a "ocean engineer" stating that checking on other peoples work, THE FOUNDATION of the scientific method is "wasteful".
I think we know who the real science deniers are here.
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I cannot figure out if you are just trying to slag McIntyre, or if you really are ignorant about him.
he was a top student for mathematics as a high school student. he was a top student at university while getting a mathematics BS. he went to Oxford on a scholarship and when he came back he turned down a scholarship to MIT for mathematical economics because he didnt want to be an academic. he may not have a PhD but it is certainly not because he couldnt get one! as has been amply shown, his mathematical acumen has been more than a match for what passes as statistical prowess in the climate science field.
the US temperature monitoring system is the most complete best coverage in the world with comenserate funding and staffing. it took an amateur Canadian sleuth who was reverse engineering the GISS data base to find a problem that had been on the books for seven years. the correction of 0.15C was a significant fraction of the total warming in the US for the entire historical record. to minimize the 'glitch' by spreading it out over the total globe is obfuscation at its best. the US had a major screw-up. who knows what other screw-ups are waiting to be found in other global areas? Paul Homewood certainly found some strange 'adjustments' in the Icelandic records but GISS has learned that stonewalling problems is easier than explaining them.
I am honestly curious as to why you have such a poor opinion of McIntyre. do you have any actual examples of poor behaviour from him? or is it just a 'people I trust hate him, so I hate him too' type of thing?
The cultists get so upset whenever people keep laughing at DearLeaderMcIntyre.
Oddly, they don't seem to understand why DearLeader's "YOU'RE A FRAUD! A HOAXER! YOU FAKE ALL THE DATA! I'M CONTACTING YOUR EMPLOYER! YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL! I'M SHOWING YOUR EMAIL TO ALL MY FOLLOWERS SO THEY'LL ALL SEND YOU HATEMAIL! Now send me all your data." thing never gets positive results from those it gets aimed at.
The cultists get so upset whenever people keep laughing at DearLeaderMcIntyre.
Oddly, they don't seem to understand why DearLeader's "YOU'RE A FRAUD! A HOAXER! YOU FAKE ALL THE DATA! I'M CONTACTING YOUR EMPLOYER! YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL! I'M SHOWING YOUR EMAIL TO ALL MY FOLLOWERS SO THEY'LL ALL SEND YOU HATEMAIL! Now send me all your data." thing never gets positive results from those it gets aimed at.
Here we have the ultimate descent into insanity of the poor admiral. A "mere" mathematician has the temerity to destroy the admirals close friends nonsense and the admiral responds by going full on batpoop crazy!The cultists get so upset whenever people keep laughing at DearLeaderMcIntyre.
Oddly, they don't seem to understand why DearLeader's "YOU'RE A FRAUD! A HOAXER! YOU FAKE ALL THE DATA! I'M CONTACTING YOUR EMPLOYER! YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL! I'M SHOWING YOUR EMAIL TO ALL MY FOLLOWERS SO THEY'LL ALL SEND YOU HATEMAIL! Now send me all your data." thing never gets positive results from those it gets aimed at.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
Wasteful? You think that pursuing the scientific method "wasteful". Lets ignore the fact that McIntyre has destroyed every claim that the clueless have made, we'll just ignore that fact...but here we have someone who claims to be a "ocean engineer" stating that checking on other peoples work, THE FOUNDATION of the scientific method is "wasteful".
I think we know who the real science deniers are here.
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I cannot figure out if you are just trying to slag McIntyre, or if you really are ignorant about him.
he was a top student for mathematics as a high school student. he was a top student at university while getting a mathematics BS. he went to Oxford on a scholarship and when he came back he turned down a scholarship to MIT for mathematical economics because he didnt want to be an academic. he may not have a PhD but it is certainly not because he couldnt get one! as has been amply shown, his mathematical acumen has been more than a match for what passes as statistical prowess in the climate science field.
the US temperature monitoring system is the most complete best coverage in the world with comenserate funding and staffing. it took an amateur Canadian sleuth who was reverse engineering the GISS data base to find a problem that had been on the books for seven years. the correction of 0.15C was a significant fraction of the total warming in the US for the entire historical record. to minimize the 'glitch' by spreading it out over the total globe is obfuscation at its best. the US had a major screw-up. who knows what other screw-ups are waiting to be found in other global areas? Paul Homewood certainly found some strange 'adjustments' in the Icelandic records but GISS has learned that stonewalling problems is easier than explaining them.
I am honestly curious as to why you have such a poor opinion of McIntyre. do you have any actual examples of poor behaviour from him? or is it just a 'people I trust hate him, so I hate him too' type of thing?
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I cannot figure out if you are just trying to slag McIntyre, or if you really are ignorant about him.
he was a top student for mathematics as a high school student. he was a top student at university while getting a mathematics BS. he went to Oxford on a scholarship and when he came back he turned down a scholarship to MIT for mathematical economics because he didnt want to be an academic. he may not have a PhD but it is certainly not because he couldnt get one! as has been amply shown, his mathematical acumen has been more than a match for what passes as statistical prowess in the climate science field.
the US temperature monitoring system is the most complete best coverage in the world with comenserate funding and staffing. it took an amateur Canadian sleuth who was reverse engineering the GISS data base to find a problem that had been on the books for seven years. the correction of 0.15C was a significant fraction of the total warming in the US for the entire historical record. to minimize the 'glitch' by spreading it out over the total globe is obfuscation at its best. the US had a major screw-up. who knows what other screw-ups are waiting to be found in other global areas? Paul Homewood certainly found some strange 'adjustments' in the Icelandic records but GISS has learned that stonewalling problems is easier than explaining them.
I am honestly curious as to why you have such a poor opinion of McIntyre. do you have any actual examples of poor behaviour from him? or is it just a 'people I trust hate him, so I hate him too' type of thing?
My reasons for disliking Stephen McIntyre are FAR more reasonable and objective than any reasons your and your buddies could possibly come up with for crucifying Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Steven Rahmstorf, Jeremy Shakun, Dana Nuccitelli or Al Gore. I have already stated what I believe McIntyre has done and not done. That he should claim credit for having done good for anyone or anything makes him, in my book, an egotistical, sociopathic charlatan. And, if you really admire the man, it doesn't say much for you.
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I cannot figure out if you are just trying to slag McIntyre, or if you really are ignorant about him.
he was a top student for mathematics as a high school student. he was a top student at university while getting a mathematics BS. he went to Oxford on a scholarship and when he came back he turned down a scholarship to MIT for mathematical economics because he didnt want to be an academic. he may not have a PhD but it is certainly not because he couldnt get one! as has been amply shown, his mathematical acumen has been more than a match for what passes as statistical prowess in the climate science field.
the US temperature monitoring system is the most complete best coverage in the world with comenserate funding and staffing. it took an amateur Canadian sleuth who was reverse engineering the GISS data base to find a problem that had been on the books for seven years. the correction of 0.15C was a significant fraction of the total warming in the US for the entire historical record. to minimize the 'glitch' by spreading it out over the total globe is obfuscation at its best. the US had a major screw-up. who knows what other screw-ups are waiting to be found in other global areas? Paul Homewood certainly found some strange 'adjustments' in the Icelandic records but GISS has learned that stonewalling problems is easier than explaining them.
I am honestly curious as to why you have such a poor opinion of McIntyre. do you have any actual examples of poor behaviour from him? or is it just a 'people I trust hate him, so I hate him too' type of thing?
My reasons for disliking Stephen McIntyre are FAR more reasonable and objective than any reasons your and your buddies could possibly come up with for crucifying Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Steven Rahmstorf, Jeremy Shakun, Dana Nuccitelli or Al Gore. I have already stated what I believe McIntyre has done and not done. That he should claim credit for having done good for anyone or anything makes him, in my book, an egotistical, sociopathic charlatan. And, if you really admire the man, it doesn't say much for you.
The difference between McIntyre and your hero's is McIntyre doesn't make his living by his studies. He has demonstrated in a few years (and with ZERO help from anyone, and in the case of your hero's, outright hostility, even before McIntyre was known) that everything your boys was saying was false.The difference between McIntyre and your hero's is McIntyre doesn't make his living by his studies.
He has demonstrated in a few years (and with ZERO help from anyone, and in the case of your hero's, outright hostility, even before McIntyre was known) that everything your boys was saying was false.
The difference between McIntyre and your hero's is McIntyre doesn't make his living by his studies.
First, I have no fucking idea who you think my "hero" might be and, second, that you think the opinion of a professional climate scientist is and should be less than the opinion of an amateur dickhead tells me more about you than it does about McIntyre - save that it does provide some good characterization for the folks who tend to admire the guy.
He has demonstrated in a few years (and with ZERO help from anyone, and in the case of your hero's, outright hostility, even before McIntyre was known) that everything your boys was saying was false.
He hasn't demonstrated jack shit.
Has McIntyre falsified the greenhouse effect?
Has McIntyre falsified the Keeling curve?
Has McIntyre falsified the 20th century's unprecedented rate of temperature increase?
How many climate scientists have said "Based on the work of Stephen McIntyre I no longer accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of our climate"?
The answers to those questions are "No", "No", "No" and "None".
The man is a worthless dick who has done nothing to advance climate science and which makes you, as his admirer... precisely what you are, I guess.
The difference between McIntyre and your hero's is McIntyre doesn't make his living by his studies.
First, I have no fucking idea who you think my "hero" might be and, second, that you think the opinion of a professional climate scientist is and should be less than the opinion of an amateur dickhead tells me more about you than it does about McIntyre - save that it does provide some good characterization for the folks who tend to admire the guy.
He has demonstrated in a few years (and with ZERO help from anyone, and in the case of your hero's, outright hostility, even before McIntyre was known) that everything your boys was saying was false.
He hasn't demonstrated jack shit.
Has McIntyre falsified the greenhouse effect?
Has McIntyre falsified the Keeling curve?
Has McIntyre falsified the 20th century's unprecedented rate of temperature increase?
How many climate scientists have said "Based on the work of Stephen McIntyre I no longer accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of our climate"?
The answers to those questions are "No", "No", "No" and "None".
The man is a worthless dick who has done nothing to advance climate science and which makes you, as his admirer... precisely what you are, I guess.
McIntyre believes in the greenhouse effect, just not the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
McIntyre has shot down everone of the stupid hockeystick reconstructions that have come out.
Doesn't it bother you that you have no examples of his bad behaviour, considering how much you hate him? I assure you that I have plenty of specific reasons why I hate Mann.
The difference between McIntyre and your hero's is McIntyre doesn't make his living by his studies.
First, I have no fucking idea who you think my "hero" might be and, second, that you think the opinion of a professional climate scientist is and should be less than the opinion of an amateur dickhead tells me more about you than it does about McIntyre - save that it does provide some good characterization for the folks who tend to admire the guy.
He has demonstrated in a few years (and with ZERO help from anyone, and in the case of your hero's, outright hostility, even before McIntyre was known) that everything your boys was saying was false.
He hasn't demonstrated jack shit.
Has McIntyre falsified the greenhouse effect?
Has McIntyre falsified the Keeling curve?
Has McIntyre falsified the 20th century's unprecedented rate of temperature increase?
How many climate scientists have said "Based on the work of Stephen McIntyre I no longer accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of our climate"?
The answers to those questions are "No", "No", "No" and "None".
The man is a worthless dick who has done nothing to advance climate science and which makes you, as his admirer... precisely what you are, I guess.
McIntyre believes in the greenhouse effect, just not the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
McIntyre has shot down everone of the stupid hockeystick reconstructions that have come out.
Doesn't it bother you that you have no examples of his bad behaviour, considering how much you hate him? I assure you that I have plenty of specific reasons why I hate Mann.
First, I have no fucking idea who you think my "hero" might be and, second, that you think the opinion of a professional climate scientist is and should be less than the opinion of an amateur dickhead tells me more about you than it does about McIntyre - save that it does provide some good characterization for the folks who tend to admire the guy.
He hasn't demonstrated jack shit.
Has McIntyre falsified the greenhouse effect?
Has McIntyre falsified the Keeling curve?
Has McIntyre falsified the 20th century's unprecedented rate of temperature increase?
How many climate scientists have said "Based on the work of Stephen McIntyre I no longer accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of our climate"?
The answers to those questions are "No", "No", "No" and "None".
The man is a worthless dick who has done nothing to advance climate science and which makes you, as his admirer... precisely what you are, I guess.
McIntyre believes in the greenhouse effect, just not the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
McIntyre has shot down everone of the stupid hockeystick reconstructions that have come out.
Doesn't it bother you that you have no examples of his bad behaviour, considering how much you hate him? I assure you that I have plenty of specific reasons why I hate Mann.
McIntyre has not shot down ANY hockeysticks. His only work in that regard was to point out that PCA analysis used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1999 tended to reduce the magnitude of the MWP. Big fucking deal. It had NO effect on 20th century temperatures. The world of climate science is FILLED with hockey sticks: temperature graphs with a dramatic and unprecedented slope in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is so filled because THAT IS WHAT THE TEMPERATURES HAVE DONE.
if you want examples of his bad behavior, read his website. If you don't see it there, the failing is your own.
Curiousity from someone reading your diatribe. The person asked you to explain your hate and you have none. So basically, you have no evidence. Hmm, seems you are just a religous fanatic told what to do. Nice........First, I have no fucking idea who you think my "hero" might be and, second, that you think the opinion of a professional climate scientist is and should be less than the opinion of an amateur dickhead tells me more about you than it does about McIntyre - save that it does provide some good characterization for the folks who tend to admire the guy.
He hasn't demonstrated jack shit.
Has McIntyre falsified the greenhouse effect?
Has McIntyre falsified the Keeling curve?
Has McIntyre falsified the 20th century's unprecedented rate of temperature increase?
How many climate scientists have said "Based on the work of Stephen McIntyre I no longer accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of our climate"?
The answers to those questions are "No", "No", "No" and "None".
The man is a worthless dick who has done nothing to advance climate science and which makes you, as his admirer... precisely what you are, I guess.
McIntyre believes in the greenhouse effect, just not the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
McIntyre has shot down everone of the stupid hockeystick reconstructions that have come out.
Doesn't it bother you that you have no examples of his bad behaviour, considering how much you hate him? I assure you that I have plenty of specific reasons why I hate Mann.
McIntyre has not shot down ANY hockeysticks. His only work in that regard was to point out that PCA analysis used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1999 tended to reduce the magnitude of the MWP. Big fucking deal. It had NO effect on 20th century temperatures. The world of climate science is FILLED with hockey sticks: temperature graphs with a dramatic and unprecedented slope in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is so filled because THAT IS WHAT THE TEMPERATURES HAVE DONE.
if you want examples of his bad behavior, read his website. If you don't see it there, the failing is your own.
Curiousity from someone reading your diatribe. The person asked you to explain your hate and you have none. So basically, you have no evidence. Hmm, seems you are just a religous fanatic told what to do. Nice........McIntyre believes in the greenhouse effect, just not the exaggerations and predictions of doom.
McIntyre has shot down everone of the stupid hockeystick reconstructions that have come out.
Doesn't it bother you that you have no examples of his bad behaviour, considering how much you hate him? I assure you that I have plenty of specific reasons why I hate Mann.
McIntyre has not shot down ANY hockeysticks. His only work in that regard was to point out that PCA analysis used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1999 tended to reduce the magnitude of the MWP. Big fucking deal. It had NO effect on 20th century temperatures. The world of climate science is FILLED with hockey sticks: temperature graphs with a dramatic and unprecedented slope in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is so filled because THAT IS WHAT THE TEMPERATURES HAVE DONE.
if you want examples of his bad behavior, read his website. If you don't see it there, the failing is your own.
(Robert Way-) I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc brought up some very good points about the original hockeystick. The confidence affirmed to it by many on our side of the debate was vastly overstated and as has been shown in the recent literature greater variability on the centennial scale exists than was shown. The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. My personal experience has been that Moberg still has the best reconstruction and his one does show greater variability. That’s why I don’t like to talk the HS stuff, because I know a lot of people who have doubts about the accuracy of the original HS.
Curiousity from someone reading your diatribe. The person asked you to explain your hate and you have none. So basically, you have no evidence. Hmm, seems you are just a religous fanatic told what to do. Nice........McIntyre has not shot down ANY hockeysticks. His only work in that regard was to point out that PCA analysis used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1999 tended to reduce the magnitude of the MWP. Big fucking deal. It had NO effect on 20th century temperatures. The world of climate science is FILLED with hockey sticks: temperature graphs with a dramatic and unprecedented slope in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is so filled because THAT IS WHAT THE TEMPERATURES HAVE DONE.
if you want examples of his bad behavior, read his website. If you don't see it there, the failing is your own.
hey jc456- here is a link to a CA article that quotes the SkS 'secret forum' on quite a few topics including Mann's hockeysticks. Behind the SKS Curtain « Climate Audit
(Robert Way-) I dont mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc brought up some very good points about the original hockeystick. The confidence affirmed to it by many on our side of the debate was vastly overstated and as has been shown in the recent literature greater variability on the centennial scale exists than was shown. The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations. Ive personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. My personal experience has been that Moberg still has the best reconstruction and his one does show greater variability. Thats why I dont like to talk the HS stuff, because I know a lot of people who have doubts about the accuracy of the original HS.
Moberg's reconstruction-
an analysis of the rates of change in Moberg. funny how both the temperature and the rate of increase is not unpresidented.
